SWR possible rolling stock replacement strategy

[43096]

And batteries are great for the environment are they? As long as the energy that produces the hydrogen is renewable (which I appreciate it isn't right now, but that doesn't mean it should be 'killed off'), it is the greenest solution out there, far better than the unsustainable lithium mining associated with batteries, which are also not nearly as energy dense and thus too heavy to be put into use in most circumstances. Just like hydrogen has a long way to go before it is completely sustainable and viable, so do batteries.

I'm sorry, but the idea that hydrogen as a solution needs to be completely killed off is complete rubbish. It's still in its' infancy and right now and if it can be implemented right it may be our chance to decarbonise the railways, alongside aviation and even container ships.

Would it be a reasonable assumption to believe that a full-on hydrogen train could be built tomorrow for SWR - of course it wouldn't. But would it be reasonable to hope that in some years time we may be looking towards it as a solution, yes.

Railway decarbonisation is spelt "electrify". Pursuing whatever this month's bionic duckweed fad is won't be the most effective solution.

 

[zwk500]

Railway decarbonisation is spelt "electrify". Pursuing whatever this month's bionic duckweed fad is won't be the most effective solution.

In the UK, batteries are going to form part of the solution, much as people conditioned to just 'DMU' and 'EMU' are resistant to the idea of carrying your electricity with you.

 

[43096]

In the UK, batteries are going to form part of the solution, much as people conditioned to just 'DMU' and 'EMU' are resistant to the idea of carrying your electricity with you.

Agreed. But we really ought to be looking to get the wires up over most lines. There will obviously be some niche cases, but I'd question if it is actually worth pursuing any other form of traction as the environmental impact of diesels on lines such as the West Highland or Far North is the square root of naff all. The problem is that a) the railway industry is institutionally incapable of managing project costs and b) the Government will look for a solution that is less than ideal in consequence.

 

[RobShipway]

Agreed. But we really ought to be looking to get the wires up over most lines. There will obviously be some niche cases, but I'd question if it is actually worth pursuing any other form of traction as the environmental impact of diesels on lines such as the West Highland or Far North is the square root of naff all. The problem is that a) the railway industry is institutionally incapable of managing project costs and b) the Government will look for a solution that is less than ideal in consequence.

Admittedly, there is a greater amount of electricity within the UK from Wind farms, but there is still electricity being created from forms that pollute the environment. You also have the case, that it does not matter what party is in Government, there is just not the money available to electrify all routes as much as possible, so alternatives need to be sorted out, otherwise targets will not be met until well into the 3000's if anyone by that time is still alive on planet earth!

 

[Snow1964]

I can’t see any justification for linking future 159 replacement with Desiro replacement. It gets suggested every few months yet they’re going to be needed on very different timescales, potentially 15 or more years apart.

There seems no practical advantage in trying to roll them up into the same process.

Neither can I, likely to be about 10-15 years between the replacements of 159s and desiro fleet.

Whilst the 458 plan for Portsmouth line made sense 4 or 5 years ago as a lower cost alternative to 442s, I suspect it is not a great idea now either. Probably should only continue if need the trains in 1-3 years (as in will need, even though managing without them today)

To be honest I would be looking at 159 replacement as part of a big batch of standard regional / outer suburban bi-modes. Joining forces with GWR project Churchward team, and possibly Chiltern team and when it eventually happens GBR team. Everyone knows that lots of silly non-standard orders just adds cost, often makes them unreliable, and usually causes parts supply problems within latter part of 40 year lives.

100mph (maybe 110mph on 25kv), seats suitable for 3+ hours, doors suitable for churn stations, some dual voltage. Standard design for Waterloo-Exeter, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Penzance, Cardiff-Nottingham, Marylebone-Birmingham etc. Displaced IETs and 170s could find better routes where they can use their speed, or for 170s to replace 156s and other 158s etc.

 

[RobShipway]

Neither can I, likely to be about 10-15 years between the replacements of 159s and desiro fleet.

Whilst the 458 plan for Portsmouth line made sense 4 or 5 years ago as a lower cost alternative to 442s, I suspect it is not a great idea now either. Probably should only continue if need the trains in 1-3 years (as in will need, even though managing without them today)

To be honest I would be looking at 159 replacement as part of a big batch of standard regional / outer suburban bi-modes. Joining forces with GWR project Churchward team, and possibly Chiltern team and when it eventually happens GBR team. Everyone knows that lots of silly non-standard orders just adds cost, often makes them unreliable, and usually causes parts supply problems within latter part of 40 year lives.

100mph (maybe 110mph on 25kv), seats suitable for 3+ hours, doors suitable for churn stations, some dual voltage. Standard design for Waterloo-Exeter, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Penzance, Cardiff-Nottingham, Marylebone-Birmingham etc. Displaced IETs and 170s could find better routes where they can use their speed, or for 170s to replace 156s and other 158s etc.

In an ideal world I would agree with your comment, although I would also include XC (Cross Country) with the joined forces of Churchward etc..., so that they can use the units to replace the class 170 units with XC, which could then be moved to help replace class 150, 155, 156 units elsewhere. Likewise replace the class 171 remaining units with Southern, so that they can be converted back to being class 170's units.

But I think that this is where GBR team is needed now, rather than later. So that you can gather all the needs of SWT, GWR, Chiltern, XC and Southern. Whether it is Stadler flirt bi or tri-mode trains or whether it is a bi or tri - mode version of class 730 or Hitachi or Siemens train that is selected, this needs to be know soon as you can then work out what is required, whether it is 2, 3, 4 or 5 car units depending on the needs of the TOC.

 

[Meerkat]

But I think that this is where GBR team is needed now, rather than later. So that you can gather all the needs of SWT, GWR, Chiltern, XC and Southern. Whether it is Stadler flirt bi or tri-mode trains or whether it is a bi or tri - mode version of class 730 or Hitachi or Siemens train that is selected, this needs to be know soon as you can then work out what is required, whether it is 2, 3, 4 or 5 car units depending on the needs of the TOC.

As GBR is basically the same muppets in DfT do you really want them picking a design that will then be everywhere?!

All GBR/DfT need to say is that there is no money for gimmicks - unless it really will significantly increase your revenue you can't have it over a standard offering.
Then the TOCs talk to the ROSCOs and the ROSCOs talk to the manufacturers - 'offer something that will do this and we can place a lot of them'

 

[Snow1964]

As GBR is basically the same muppets in DfT do you really want them picking a design that will then be everywhere?!

All GBR/DfT need to say is that there is no money for gimmicks - unless it really will significantly increase your revenue you can't have it over a standard offering.
Then the TOCs talk to the ROSCOs and the ROSCOs talk to the manufacturers - 'offer something that will do this and we can place a lot of them'

When I suggested SWR class 159 replacement should be linked with GWR Cardiff-Portsmouth, Chiltern, XC 170s etc, I was thinking teams talking to each other to get a standard design, where they could get a better price (and reliability) by using common design that suits them all. Ultimately all in business of moving people and being attractive to both commuters and family groups so differences should be minor.

I agree if get a load of ex DfT staff doing their own thing and changing it from train that is ideal, to some sort of altered for sake of it (trying to reinvent the wheel approach) that doesn't really work well for anybody, then will be bad outcome.

 

[Meerkat]

If you want good value and good reliability then get the manufacturers involved early, before they start botching their easiest standard product too much to expensively comply with a specification.
And the SWR need end doors

 

[RobShipway]

As GBR is basically the same muppets in DfT do you really want them picking a design that will then be everywhere?!

All GBR/DfT need to say is that there is no money for gimmicks - unless it really will significantly increase your revenue you can't have it over a standard offering.
Then the TOCs talk to the ROSCOs and the ROSCOs talk to the manufacturers - 'offer something that will do this and we can place a lot of them'

True, had not thought of that to be honest. But someone needs to be in control of placing together the needs of the TOC's, whether it is the manufacturer communicating to all TOC's or someone hopefully doing a good job of communicating as one voice to the manufacturer from GBR.

If you want good value and good reliability then get the manufacturers involved early, before they start botching their easiest standard product too much to expensively comply with a specification.
And the SWR need end doors

The sooner an order is placed, the better. Personally, I would say that all TOC's I mentioned earlier would be better in having train end doors and through gangways, so that when units work together passengers can get from one unit to another whilst the train is in motion if required. I know that there will be many against this, as it does not give drivers much space when travelling long distance and those that will say that end doors with through gangways should be kept for suburban trains only.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT have just published SWR Business plan commitments 2023-2024

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171462/first-mtr-south-western-trains-ltd-business-plan-commitments-2023-2024.pdf

Section ES01 on page 11 is Decarbonisation Roadmap, and it says Subject to funding being available, commitment to implement by (redacted date) the strategy and long term pathway towards total decarbonisation by (redacted) of both traction and non traction carbon....

So whatever the strategy to replace the 159s, has to meet the total decarbonisation of traction plan.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

DfT have just published SWR Business plan commitments 2023-2024

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171462/first-mtr-south-western-trains-ltd-business-plan-commitments-2023-2024.pdf

Section ES01 on page 11 is Decarbonisation Roadmap, and it says Subject to funding being available, commitment to implement by (redacted date) the strategy and long term pathway towards total decarbonisation by (redacted) of both traction and non traction carbon....

So whatever the strategy to replace the 159s, has to meet the total decarbonisation of traction plan.

I would suggest the key thing to note in this is “Subject to funding being available” we all know the railway isn’t exactly a popular destination for funding from the government at the moment.

 

[RobShipway]

I would suggest the key thing to note in this is “Subject to funding being available” we all know the railway isn’t exactly a popular destination for funding from the government at the moment.

Well, in 15 months time we will be having a new government. If it is the existing Government carringy on, then the answer is no funding. Make do with what you have.

Other parties I believe have in their mandates about improving public transport, whether that means extra money to the railways being promised, I am sure we will find out nearer to the election. If money to the railways is promised, then it is whether the political party in power can deliver that money.